Abdul Latheef v. State of Kerala and Sajitha

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 2717 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 491/2011 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 381/2007 of J.M.F.C., MANNARKAD -----------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-------------------** **ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.ESMAYIL, NILALAYIL HOUSE, KONIKKAZHY PLAPATTA AMSOM, UMMANAZHI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. SAJITHA, AGED 31 YEARS** **D/O.ABDU, AARIYANIYIL HOUSE, VAZAMPURAM AMSOM AARAPURA DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PIN-678582.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.MEENA.A.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** **Crl.MC.No. 2717 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** **APPENDIX ---------** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17-2-2007 SENT TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANNARKKAD.** **ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE CHARGE LAID AGAIST THE PETITIONER IN MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION CRIME NO.172/2007** **ANNEXURE-3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.9.2011 IN C.C.381/2007 ON THE FILE OF JFCM,MANNARKKAD.** **ANNEXURE-4 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 22-6-2013** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :NIL** **-----------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2717 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of July, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is accused in C.C.No.381/07 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 381/07 of Mannarkkad Police Station] for the offences punishable under Section 498 A of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the conviction and sentence entered against the petitioner by Annexure -3 judgment dated 17.9.2011 in C.C.No.381/07 and Crl.A.No.491/11 pending on the file of Additional Session's Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Palakkad, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner herein married the de facto complainant who is 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2717 of 2013** the 2[nd] respondent on 29.3.1998 and after that they were residing in the matrimonial house at Arappara and according to the prosecution, the accused misappropriated the entire money and gold given to PW1 and it is also the allegation that the petitioner harassed the de facto complainant on demanding more money and gold and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under section 498 A of IPC. 3. The police on completing the investigation in Crime No.172/07 which was registered on the basis of the petition preferred by the de facto complainant before the Sub Inspector of Mannarkkad police station, upon which the court took cognizance and instituted C.C.No.381/07 and by judgment dated 17.9.2011 the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad found that the petitioner/accused is guilty and accordingly he is sentenced. Challenging the above order and sentence, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal, ie., Crl.A.No.491/11 before the Additional Session's Judge (Fast Track Court 3 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2717 of 2013** No.II), Palakkad. Now, the case of the petitioner/s is that the matter is settled out of court. Annexure 4 is the affidavit sworn in by the de facto complainant/the 2[nd] respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/s as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, matrimonial as well as the criminal disputes, which are the subject matters of the above case, are settled amicably and now they are now residing together as man and wife,. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2717 of 2013** against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Section 498 A of I.P.C., which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the 5 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2717 of 2013** petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Honourable Apex Court, in the decision reported in **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others** v. **Babita Raghuvanshi and another** [2013 (1) KLD 817(SC)], has held as follows:- “7. It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C. not only against the husband but also against the relatives of the husband. The question is when such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both the sides approached the High Court and jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C., whether the prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. 8. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise before the 6 **Crl.M.C.No.2717 of 2013** Trial Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in additional to the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent/wife has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants and fully supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that no only the Trial Court rejected such prayer of the parties but also the High Court failed toe exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on the ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non-compoundable in nature.” “12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 13. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the Courts should be 7 **Crl.M.C.No.2717 of 2013** less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.” In the present case, the only offence involved is under Section 498A of I.P.C. The criminal proceedings for the said offence originated from the matrimonial issues, which are now settled. Consequently, the parties want a quietus to the criminal case as well. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision will be squarely applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there 8 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2717 of 2013** would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Crl.M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner vide Annexure 3 judgment in C.C.No.381/07 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Mannarkkad, and all further proceedings in Crl.A.No.491/11 on the file of the court of Additional Session's Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Palakkad. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge